It would of made more sense to invest the money in more system memory as I see that as a greater bottle neck for preformance then plain old DVD.

The Cell processor is a complex bit of tech but in time they will be able to use it's power efficiently, the graphics card is pretty good and handles the 1080p res fine (and was as good as possible at the design stage) but in time I'm sure the small amount of Ram in the system is really going to hurt.

The extra cost of the Ram would be small compared to BluRay but preformance wise it would of given the PS3 a large advantage over the Xbox360.

_{lol Wow this topic shot off in numerous directions XD.} 

 I guess first and foremost I'm going to mention the fact that Blu-ray has already helped massively in terms of gameplay, I see numerous games getting INSANE praise for their soundtracks/textures/cutscenes. Who cares if you can take them out to save space? Dude WERE GETTING ALL THAT STUFF AS A BONUS.  Sure the game is short, but they CAN make them longer, its already been proven, besides all that were still in the early dev. stages, WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY, of course developement costs are high at the moment. Games will be shorter in early developement, its just the way things work. 

Why are we even comparing Gears of war with Resistance?!? How many of you guys actually sat down and played both? My friend and I beat gears of war in a 5 1/2 hour sitting x.x;;; Resistance's single player honestly feels 3x the length, sounds better, and has WAY BIGGER environments. This arguement is a serious joke -_- that and resistance was a LAUNCH TITLE. X.X 

This one makes me want to stab my eyes out -_- "OMFG TEH SONYZ'S  AER SHUVING TEH BLURAYZ DOWN MAH THROWT." Seriously I wan't to understand this statement a little better. PS3 games come on bluray, and this is bad? Not that I see.... The PS3 plays DVD's? ummm, yeah, as a matter of fact it upscales them x.x;;; Sony STILL MAKES DVD PLAYERS for craps sake >< Where is all of this "SHOVING" comming from? I just don't get it? The way I see it, I can go to blockbuster and pick up DVD's and watch them upscaled, OR I can go to the blu-ray section and pick up a high def film. So if by "Shoving" we mean "giving us options" then I guess I can agree o.O  Now if its the price thats being forced on you by the blu-ray player being added, I have a simple solution. *drum roll* ummm yeah.. don't buy one x.x and if you can't afford the 399 model then just wait it out until it lowers into your market. I don't really see an issue here.

 I guess my final closing statements are this, no matter how you cut the pie, you CAN compress games, you CAN avoid using 5.1 uber lossless audio, you CAN cut out all the "useless cutscenes" to save space. But honestly guys why are we even arguing about what we could cut out of games? Last time I checked I wanted these features. Both versions of strangle hold are about the same in terms of gameplay and stuff, but from what I've heard the ps3's comes with a movie... how, when, why is this a bad thing?

It's also the reason he didn't close this thread to begin with (he was the mod to repsond to my report.)  He thought starcraft actually had a valid argument in the original post of lies.  I'm glad ioi likes this kind of fair moderation on the boards.  It shows how much of a dipshit site this really is that one mod has so much veto power.

Prove to me that BluRay is the device that's the sole reason the PS3 cost is where it is. Prove to me that if they used DVD9, the console would cost the consumer $250.

You can't. You can't prove to me or anyone here that the BDROM in the PS3 is driving he price of the console up by $150 opposed to sticking in a DVDROM. I want prices from within the past week. Not the prices released last year.

BluRay is there because it can be. If the developers want ot use that space they very well can. BluRay is here to stay. They aren't going to remove it. It isn't going to cost anymore than HDDVD, and the disc price to manufacture is getting cheaper daily. Which is another challenge I give you. I don't want retail cost on a blank disc. I want you to prove to me that pressing a BD is more expensive than pressing a DVD.

Again, I highly doubt you can give me verifiable evidence of such. You can't even verify that it might cost more or less to press two or three DVDs instead of one BD.

BluRay doesn't have to make consumers "see" a difference. It can in movies, at 1080p, with high detail sound. However, on games, it's harder to see. It's not a video card which has the biggest impact on visual accuity. However, as I stated above, you may not see it in screen shots, but they could add far more variation to the worlds and levels of games than they could with DVD9. This is simply because of the space allowed to add tons more unique world meshes, textures, sounds, and even video if the designer so chooses.

I hate to say it, but you've completely missed the point again.

Nowhere in my quoted post do I talk about the PS3 being more expensive because of BluRay or about games on BluRay costing more simply because they're on BluRay. That said, it seems pretty obvious that a BluRay drive is more expensive than a DVD drive, and that a BRD is more expensive than a DVD, but that's beside the point.

The point was that the realization of benefits from BluRay both isn't particularly meaningful to consumers and isn't worth the price for developers.

It's absurd to argue that making use of BluRay - that is, filling between 9 and 25gb - is generally only as expensive as making use of a DVD. To actually make a game on BluRay in any way different than a game on DVD, you have to exceed the space limitations on a DVD, and that will prove to be generally more expensive. However, doing this is cost-prohibitive, since it doesn't capture many more sales than just using 9gb would, which evidences that consumers really don't care that much about the extra content.

You even concede this in your last paragraph when you say that it's harder to see the benefits of BluRay in games. You even grant that the extra space is only nice because it allows for more 'if the designer so chooses'. That right there seems to torpedo any notion of BluRay being necessary - there wouldn't really be a choice if it was, and many more developers would have made use of it.

Kamahl, it's not my problem if you aren't able to debate my initial point, but don't insult me, or anyone else in your frustration. That's not tolerated, and this is your warning. Debate civilly or you will be banned. My point wasn't the point of the initial topic. My point was that Blu-ray hasn't increased game length. You continue to try and redirect that to something I wasn't talking about in the first place. Also, you said:

"Actually, the Wii has the shortest games of the generation so far, just because they aren't popular doesn't mean they shouldn't be counted. And it also has a lot of no storyline games that depend on how fast you get bored of it. Pretty unfair to say the PS3 has the shortest games when those games don't require half as much work as the games being developed for the other 2 consoles and PC."

Super Mario Galaxy is full of content and nothing in it is repetitive. Every galaxy is absolutely unique if professional reviewers are to be believed. Metroid Prime 3 is the same, but with a plot and voice acting. It seems you are the one lacking knowledge of the games I'm talking about.

Also, what do you consider the game with the most content you have ever played? Because Brawl has: a robust single-player adventure game that goes through storylines for every single character with stylized FMV mixed in for plot development, online co-op for that adventure, at least 35 playable completely unique characters when all is said and done, dozens of unique stages, a stage builder, online multiplayer, tons of unlockables (trophies, songs, stickers, etc.), recordable video and screenshot tools, and many other game modes (such as classic, target, home run, etc.), and unannounced features.

As far as Folklore, I went by the playtime stated in the Gametrailers review. If that's incorrect then I apologize, but usually I consider review sources pretty accurate when it comes to gameplay time. Back to my original point though, if you aren't going to attempt to prove that Blu-ray is making games longer, then what are you arguing with me about? I'm not debating the original topic. I had my own point of view on Blu-ray and you have sidestepped it constantly.

 Going by that argument (that something isn't "necessary" would mean that you still farm your own food and raise your own chickens?  Cause, I mean, let's face it.  It really isn't necessary to do any more than that to survive.  Oh, not getting that analogy?  How about this one.  It isn't necessary for you to buy a new car.  But is sure is nice to have one.  Or how necessary is it to order out when you could just make your own meal at home?  Convenience.  Sure, it might cost a little more, but is sure is nice to not have to do all the extra work.  It's not necessary to have electricity, but you pay that bill every day.  People have to work extra to provide you that service when they don't need to.  So why is it really necessary?  You could boil your bath water over an open fire in the back yard.  (It's also not necessary to live in town.  It's costing you extra in property taxes, and the benefit of living in town isn't all that much better than out in the woods.  I mean, it's good enough.  Right?

If you really think BluRay isn't necessary to advance beyond the games we have today, your kidding yourself.  Games are using a full 9G DVD and PS3 games are using more.  If you don't think it's necessary, I take it that you still used vinyl records today?  They are still available, and you get "good enough" sound out of them.  Why would your music need to be on something other than vinyl?  Or heck, even recorder scrolls.

It's about advancing technology.  It will get bigger, faster, smarter, hotter, or cooler.  NOTHING is necessary except food and water.  Everything else is irrelivant by your logic.

Wow well said my friend.

"Actually, the Wii has the shortest games of the generation so far, just because they aren't popular doesn't mean they shouldn't be counted. And it also has a lot of no storyline games that depend on how fast you get bored of it."

@ Naznatips
He means Wii play and the other cash in games on the Wii, thats why he said "Just because they arent popular doesnt mean they shouldnt be counted"

@ Kamahl
Calm down